From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 22 07:49:27 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CEF16A41F for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 07:49:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1729813C48C for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 07:49:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 70so1524730wra for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 00:49:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hsM9p+S5InikBdRw0R3Sorejy5Mzes/IlepcWRYufCHatiEa87rh1xIEE/klDsZ2SHxpG24MM6TiHIxxRU13hfyetUxCudoa19JsWCDIaT3efsKXprC04ldLy6Bo3AZ0lrZrxA0qI96I/Sk0bSzjGqbEwqNH+dt9elIcE+wU4kA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=BTxgvspj5Dfwnq6arfrqLFzPeIbU6PcUcyNYyhwE3WRUUT282zvi9VmWQxS6UwgHJAT58H+6Wo20yaxJeuft7iMeX7KPFxwL2Cv6Tp4Pl6twMK/j2eicYJP8il4b/AwE6+jj/xMi4XXoaN0FcQCxUCqOwKFPEfuchJQB6kKQ2YY= Received: by 10.115.60.1 with SMTP id n1mr3176281wak.1179820166134; Tue, 22 May 2007 00:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.126.10 with HTTP; Tue, 22 May 2007 00:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2a41acea0705220049w32b50fc6m37a2e2fef5c8837e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 00:49:26 -0700 From: "Jack Vogel" To: "Ian FREISLICH" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em0 hijacking traffic to port 623 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 07:49:27 -0000 On 5/21/07, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > "Jack Vogel" wrote: > > > On 5/21/07, Sten Spans wrote: > > > > On Mon, 21 May 2007, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > > > > I've looked at the bios, but I can't find any settings that remotely > > > > > hint IPMI or RMCP+ or serial-over-lan. > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone know how I can stop the card or system from stealing > > > > > port 623 in hardware or must I just stop using em0 (and/or Intel NICS)? > > > > > > > > Does "ifconfig em0 promisc" help ? > > > > That fixed firmware related vanishing ipv6 packets on fxp and em. > > > > > > Is this happening even with the latest CURRENT driver, there is code in > > > it now that is supposed to stop the firmware from doing that, at least > > > that was the theory :) > > > > No, it's a March 6 current. How safe is it to just update the > > sys/dev/em directory and recompile? Quite a lot has changed in > > CURRENT since then and I don't want to update everything on these > > servers just yet. > > Looking at the new source, I'm not sure it will stop this adaptor > gobbling port 623. It's a 82546EB, e1000_82546_rev_3 e1000_mac_type. > In em_init_manageability(), it looks like it's only disabled for > e1000_mac_type >= e1000_82571 which excludes this adaptor: > > /* enable receiving management packets to the host */ > if (adapter->hw.mac.type >= e1000_82571) { > manc |= E1000_MANC_EN_MNG2HOST; > #define E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_623 (1 << 5) > #define E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_664 (1 << 6) > manc2h |= E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_623; > manc2h |= E1000_MNG2HOST_PORT_664; > E1000_WRITE_REG(&adapter->hw, E1000_MANC2H, manc2h); > } > > I'll give the driver a whirl anyway. If it doesn't, is it safe to write > 'manc |= E1000_MANC_EN_MNG2HOST' for adapter->hw.mac.type >= e1000_82546? It may be that register doesnt exist on the earlier adapter, I'm not sure. There is also a system configuration to avoid that port use by the port mapper, although the exact way slips my mind right now. If you can test that would be useful. Jack